This is a bill that has important ramificatios for traffic safety in the state of Texas. HB 55
Introduction:
→ The beginning and end of school can be a surprisingly dangerous time for children. There are a lot of small children entering and exiting school from their bicycles, carpools, and buses. They are hard to see from many vans and SUV's – and even from some cars, especially in the rear. The children are distracted, small, and running to greet friends and teachers, without regard for the traffic. Parents are often rushing to work or to after-school activities. There is enough chaos without the added distraction of “wireless communication devices” – cellphones, PDA's, etc. For this reason, a bill was introduced to ban the use of these devices in school zones and on school buses transporting children.
→ The punishment for using them would be a fine, escalating for subsequent offenses. In order to properly warn motorists, amendments were added to ensure that signs would be posted to ensure that people knew about the difference in law when they entered the school zone.
Bill Timeline:
→ The bill was authored by Branch, Menendez, and Bolton and sponsored by Carona.
→ It was filed on November 10, 2008.
→ It was sent to the House transportation committee on Feb 12, 2009. It was passed out of the Transportation committee by a vote of 7 – 0 on April 15. On May 14th, an amendment was accepted in the House. It passed the House vote on May 15th.
→ In the Senate, Carona introduced an amendment, which was accepted on May 23rd. On May 26th, the bill passed the Senate. The House concurred with the Senate amendment on May 29th.
→ On June 19th, the governor signed the bill into law. It is to take effect on September 1st, 2009.
Bill Analysis:
→ This ban is intended to make school areas safer for school children.
→ It is widely believed that using a hands-free device makes drivers less distracted by their hand-held devices. For this reason, a provision was included in the bill that allows motorists to use a hands-free device. This is actually standard in anti-cellphone legislation throughout the country. It is interesting to note that it has recently come to light that the government knew of research that it is mostly the conversation, not the holding of the phone, that distracts drivers, so even hands-free devices are dangerous. (It is widely thought that the communications industry pressured the government to suppress the studies.)
→ The Amendments generally concerned the fine ($25 to $50) and strengthened protections for first responders who would be allowed to use radio devices and the like.
→ The concern for this ban actually being less safe, since phones are often used to call for help, is reflected in the fact that it is very clear that motorists can call with a hand-held device if they are calling for emergency support – and “emergency” is defined very clearly (police, fire, etc.) so that people would not be fined for using their phone to protect themselves. (This is actually an interesting parallel to the second amendment right's arguments, where people say that guns actually make them safer, not more dangerous).
Bill Supporters:
→ There is, as would be expected, a wide coalition of people who supported this bill. As evidenced by the school districts around the state that have already instituted wireless-free zones in school areas, many school officials think that this is very important to safeguard children. AAA of Texas also supported this bill, as it would lead to safer driving and fewer accident, a main goal of AAA (and other motorist groups). Although they did not specifically lobby for this bill on the record, one would presume that parents and medical professionals, who would have to deal with the fallout of accidents, also would oppose this bill.
Bill Opponents:
→ There are actually two very different groups of people who opposed this bill, even though it was not a very vocal opposition. The first group are people who did not think that this bill goes far enough. Similar to the bill that would have prevented young drivers from using their wireless devices at all (texting or calling), HB 662, there were those who felt that if this bill passed, then legislators would not feel so compelled to pass stronger legislation barring talking/using a hand-held device while driving at all, which is something that some safety officials would like to pass across the board. On the other hand, some in the communication industry are nervous that this could be a first step to further legislation to limit use of wireless devices in the car, which if implemented on a wider range (not just in school zones), would limit people’s use of cell phone minutes and then hurt the bottom line of the communications people. However, in light of the fact that it is very difficult to argue that people should be on the phone and drive near small children walking, there was not very much vocal opposition at all.
HB 55
Introduction:
→ The beginning and end of school can be a surprisingly dangerous time for children. There are a lot of small children entering and exiting school from their bicycles, carpools, and buses. They are hard to see from many vans and SUV's – and even from some cars, especially in the rear. The children are distracted, small, and running to greet friends and teachers, without regard for the traffic. Parents are often rushing to work or to after-school activities. There is enough chaos without the added distraction of “wireless communication devices” – cellphones, PDA's, etc. For this reason, a bill was introduced to ban the use of these devices in school zones and on school buses transporting children.
→ The punishment for using them would be a fine, escalating for subsequent offenses. In order to properly warn motorists, amendments were added to ensure that signs would be posted to ensure that people knew about the difference in law when they entered the school zone.
Bill Timeline:
→ The bill was authored by Branch, Menendez, and Bolton and sponsored by Carona.
→ It was filed on November 10, 2008.
→ It was sent to the House transportation committee on Feb 12, 2009. It was passed out of the Transportation committee by a vote of 7 – 0 on April 15. On May 14th, an amendment was accepted in the House. It passed the House vote on May 15th.
→ In the Senate, Carona introduced an amendment, which was accepted on May 23rd. On May 26th, the bill passed the Senate. The House concurred with the Senate amendment on May 29th.
→ On June 19th, the governor signed the bill into law. It is to take effect on September 1st, 2009.
Bill Analysis:
→ This ban is intended to make school areas safer for school children.
→ It is widely believed that using a hands-free device makes drivers less distracted by their hand-held devices. For this reason, a provision was included in the bill that allows motorists to use a hands-free device. This is actually standard in anti-cellphone legislation throughout the country. It is interesting to note that it has recently come to light that the government knew of research that it is mostly the conversation, not the holding of the phone, that distracts drivers, so even hands-free devices are dangerous. (It is widely thought that the communications industry pressured the government to suppress the studies.)
→ The Amendments generally concerned the fine ($25 to $50) and strengthened protections for first responders who would be allowed to use radio devices and the like.
→ The concern for this ban actually being less safe, since phones are often used to call for help, is reflected in the fact that it is very clear that motorists can call with a hand-held device if they are calling for emergency support – and “emergency” is defined very clearly (police, fire, etc.) so that people would not be fined for using their phone to protect themselves. (This is actually an interesting parallel to the second amendment right's arguments, where people say that guns actually make them safer, not more dangerous).
Bill Supporters:
→ There is, as would be expected, a wide coalition of people who supported this bill. As evidenced by the school districts around the state that have already instituted wireless-free zones in school areas, many school officials think that this is very important to safeguard children. AAA of Texas also supported this bill, as it would lead to safer driving and fewer accident, a main goal of AAA (and other motorist groups). Although they did not specifically lobby for this bill on the record, one would presume that parents and medical professionals, who would have to deal with the fallout of accidents, also would oppose this bill.
Bill Opponents:
→ There are actually two very different groups of people who opposed this bill, even though it was not a very vocal opposition. The first group are people who did not think that this bill goes far enough. Similar to the bill that would have prevented young drivers from using their wireless devices at all (texting or calling), HB 662, there were those who felt that if this bill passed, then legislators would not feel so compelled to pass stronger legislation barring talking/using a hand-held device while driving at all, which is something that some safety officials would like to pass across the board. On the other hand, some in the communication industry are nervous that this could be a first step to further legislation to limit use of wireless devices in the car, which if implemented on a wider range (not just in school zones), would limit people’s use of cell phone minutes and then hurt the bottom line of the communications people. However, in light of the fact that it is very difficult to argue that people should be on the phone and drive near small children walking, there was not very much vocal opposition at all.